British Government to Ban Use of Life-Prolonging Cancer Drugs Because They Are Too Ex

You would get the drugs on the NHS is you paid more taxes, is the bottom line. The question is, "are you willing to pay more taxes?" I'm not, so I can't really complain when the NHS tells me that some drugs are too expensive for it to provide them to me for free

 

Bingo! Therein lies the conundrum. If I ascribe to the liberal view, that the government can and should take care of me...then why is the government putting a price on it?

 

You pay Medicaid/Medicare yet you don't have that standard now, why would it change?

 

We're discussing the United Kingdom and their decision to not make certain drugs available; my correlation is 1) each individual in the U.K. pays taxes for that health care, but are being denied certain medications (unless they pay extra for it); 2) we're on the path to the same form of health care.

 

Because it's not an either/or; government only provides to the extent that we pay in tax, and only taxes to the extent it provides (well, in theory at least)

 

I think before any of you get too upset it would be advisable to understand what the drugs are and how effective they are. Many of these are last resort attempts to just extend life a few months, often at the expense of any sort of quality of life. For instance I was, after standard chemo and radiation placed on a maintenance regimen of an available drug here in the U.S. and check out the side effects.

Sorry, the link went to Photobucket which contained some bad ads across from the picture. Removed so I wouldn't offend!!!!! Changed avatar to reflect.

This was at the cost of $3600.00 per month to the Taxpayer. Researching on the internet I found out that this miracle substance could possibly extend my life from six all the way up to eight months. What you can't see in the picture is the sores thru my scalp that itched and drove me crazy. Made sleep very difficult and left stains all over my pillow and sheets. So before you get too upset, consider all the facts.

P.S. Never mind..... rant removed! Enough to say that I am now opting for alternative treatment of diet and nutritional supplements, firmly believing that will provide the best longevity and quality of life.

 

Thanks, Tom. That does put a different perspective on it.

Praying for you.

 

For LeBuick:

You aren't addressing the problem. Government will get to choose who lives and dies. Being they fund abortions, it's pretty obvious how badly they choose already.

Furthermore...from a previous post of mine, unaddressed, of course, because pro-gov't healthcare folks have no answer for it:

...here you go: our future.

CBSNEWS source (hardly "right-wing").

Among the scary slipshot travesties in how we've treated our veterans (revealed by an inspection of VA procedures by its Inspector General and CBS):

• 16,000 pieces of unopened mail at its Detroit office. Another 132 documents which belonged in veterans' claim files ended up in the shred bins at four regional offices.
• The inspector general reviewed 390 claims submitted to the New York office and found that 220 of them - more than half - had been deliberately misdated to make it look like claims were being processed faster than they really were.
• Whatever you do, don't ever move. Many vets move, and their records are lost in transit.
• A ridiculous, antiquated, redundant, red-tape laden system overwhelms workers with paperwork...160 million pages a year - and as a result, some workers cut corners, falsify records, or just plain screw up.

So, I ask again (and not-so-surprisingly, responses are few and far between)...The government has had a shot at doing healthcare, and they are much worse than private industry. Why would we want them to be in charge of all of it?

 

I have United Healthcare through my wifes job. We pay them out of her check every two weeks. They have limitations also. Ex... They don't cover preexisting conditions. This means of the life long conditions like diabetes, hypertension, etc... they pick and choose via this escape clause if they will cover you particular situation or not.

They will not pay for a name brand medication if a generic is available unless you doctor swears on a stack of bibles that only the name brand will work for you and even then they make the final decision.

They also have a lifetime maximum of $1 million per covered person.

IOW we pay them directly and there is a chance certain things to include medications won't be covered. What I am saying is there are limits to every plan to include free enterprise, private health plans. Why would that change because you pay via taxes vs direct pay?

 

The way you say they choose who lives or dies is normal for any health plan. I don't necessarily see that as choosing who lives or dies, they have a list of what is covered or not. Every health plan has limitations so why should a government plan be different? Why should a government plan be held to a higher standard?

Secondly, it isn't the government who chooses. It is the company contracted/paid by the government to administer the program. The govt is just the face of the bad news.

Last... With private insure we have today, there are different levels of plans. You can't complain that you can't get premium service with the basic plan, if you want premium service you must get the premium plan. Government plan is basic because that is the cheapest. If you want premium you must come out of pocket for the additional cost. That is no different that todays system.

I am not pro-govt healthcare. I like freedom of choice and don't believe in the one plan fits all concept. I only chimed in to say the reason some of you are opposed to govt healthcare isn't valid, every provider has a list of what they will and will not cover.

My second concern is that we figure out a way to give everyone access to health care of some kind. I don't like the gouging cobra does to unemployed people or the fact that we have millions of American's with no health care at all. In the end we the tax payers end up paying for their medical needs. When a HIV patient is no longer covered by their private plan, who do you think pays for their medical care? You guessed it, the tax payers.

This is also the idiocy of the right terming the HIV prevention program in the stimulus plan as "buying c0nd0ms". That is a very short sided view when you see how much we pay to sustain and treat HIV patients, c0nd0ms is a bargain. You want less government and less taxes don't you? Well, c0nd0ms was a step to make that happen but instead the idea was turned into propaganda and not looked at for what it was.

 

Tom...keeping you in my prayers...

 

What is mail and who are mail readers?

I certainly am not!

 

On my prayer list too!

 

"Less government" means that the government doesn't spend time and money trying to fix all things unfixable.

We cannot prevent STD's as a people. Only individuals can. I doubt I know anyone that can't afford a box of you-know-whats.

The government designed by our founding fathers never attempted to protect people from the consequences of their actions. A "nanny state" eventually implodes under its own weight and self-imposed burdens.

 

Allow me to introduce you toThe Daily Mail

 

Our founding fathers didn't have Medicaid/Medicare that paid for these actions. This means they had no skin in the prevention game.

Having said that, not all HIV is contracted via immoral acts which is why we were also throwing money at research. If we can figure out a way to make blood safe, prevent babies from being being born infected, we'd sure save a lot of dough...

 

Well, I can remember in my lifetime when blood was safe and babies weren't born infected with HIV and HIV/AIDS was never heard of. And that was before government intervention which only made it worse.

 

That's when the fear was hepatitis via blood transfusion but luckily they licked that one... :thumbs:

 

PEOPLE ENGAGE IN CASUAL SEX, TO DATE THERE HAVE BEEN 2,092 CASES
OF REPORTED HETEROSEXUAL TRANSMISSION OUT OF A TOTAL OF 52,249
ADULT CASES OF AIDS (ABOUT 4 PERCENT>, IF YOU EXCLUDE THE
FOREIGN-BORN, THE FIGURE DROPS TO 2.3 PERCENT AND MOST OF THOSE
CASES ARE THE SEXUAL PARTNERS OF IV DRUG ABUSERS, THE CENTERS
FOR DISEASE CONTROL (CD0 ESTIMATES THAT BY 1991 HETEROSEXUAL
TRANSMISSION WILL ACCOUNT FOR, 5 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL ADULT
CASELOAD,


http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/QQ/B/B/H/H/_/qqbbhh.ocr

That 5% never happened, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. AIDS is, and always has been, a gay disease.